Southern Railway Co. v. Penn

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Southern Railway Co. v. Penn

89 S.E. 489, 18 Ga. App. 431, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 392

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 12, 1916

Docket7154

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 89 S.E. 489 (Southern Railway Co. v. Penn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Southern Railway Co. v. Penn, 89 S.E. 489, 18 Ga. App. 431, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 392 (Ga. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Hodges, J.

1. Under the facts in this case the court erred in. refusing to charge the jury as requested-by the defendant, as follows: “I charge you that in this ease, even if the plaintiff, Alice Penn, was misled by the announcement of the station Griffin, and when the train stopped she attempted to get off while stopped, and that before she got off the train started and she was injured, and if you further believe that, under the facts and circumstances surrounded the occurrence, the servants and agents of the defendant in charge of that train were in the exercise of that degree of care and diligence due to the plaintiff under the law, then the plaintiff can not recover, but the injury, if any, must be attributable to accident.:’

2. The other requests presented by the defendant were covered in the charge given by the court, and other alleged errors will not likely recur upon a new trial. Judgment reveresd.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hodges, J.

1. Under the facts in this case the court erred in. refusing to charge the jury as requested-by the defendant, as follows: “I charge you that in this ease, even if the plaintiff, Alice Penn, was misled by the announcement of the station Griffin, and when the train stopped she attempted to get off while stopped, and that before she got off the train started and she was injured, and if you further believe that, under the facts and circumstances surrounded the occurrence, the servants and agents of the defendant in charge of that train were in the exercise of that degree of care and diligence due to the plaintiff under the law, then the plaintiff can not recover, but the injury, if any, must be attributable to accident.:’

2. The other requests presented by the defendant were covered in the charge given by the court, and other alleged errors will not likely recur upon a new trial. Judgment reveresd.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 S.E. 489, 18 Ga. App. 431, 1916 Ga. App. LEXIS 392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-railway-co-v-penn-gactapp-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack